==============================  CFJ 2192  ==============================

    tusho has been a player at some point in time


Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ehird:                        24 Sep 2008 10:56:38 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     28 Sep 2008 22:12:49 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble:                  29 Sep 2008 00:01:35 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The message sent (quoted in evidence #1) where "Phil Lister purported" to
register: a complete fabrication. I registered that email account, made up a
name, and sent that email. (Source: evidence #2)

Yesterday, the identity claim in evidence #1 self-ratified. (Rule 2170)

[Phill is a close friend of agoran@live.com... >:D]

        A public message's claim as to who published it is
        self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a
        challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has
        been issued within one month before its publication.

Okay, so, we need to figure out what identity is.

Which of these was the claim of identity:

> Phill

> Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English
> and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150)

> Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English
> and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) who has never been a player
> before

(The latter two are probably isomorphic.)

Anyway: I don't know. I really don't. It's up to you, Judge, you poor, poor
person. (Unless you're Phill. (Now THERE's an idea...))

Anyway: if the first ratified, then Phill isn't a person or whatever, e (if
"e" even applies) just sent message #1 (and message #2 was probably sent by
me since it hasn't ratified yet).

If the second ratified, then Phill is a first-class player. Eep. I just
created a first-class player out of _nothingness_.

If the third ratified, same.

When discussing this with comex (in the 'hypothetical' of course...) e said
that e believed the first ratified and so nothing much really happened.

But e also gave another possibility: Since _I_ sent that message, it's
possible that "Phill" is just an alias for me. So perhaps either:

        1. my name changed to Phill
        2. my name... also changed to Phill
        3. my name changed to Phill *and it ratifies that I was never a

I just hope it's not the last one.

I think that's all the arguments I wanted to make. It's all I can think of
right now, so I'm going to leave you all to deal with this mess.


Oh, and you can get me under 2170:

> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead
> others as to the identity of its publisher.

since at the time I sent that message, Phill didn't exist and _I_ sent it and
I was just pretending to be this "Phill". Unless it turns out that something
retroactive happened, in which case Phill always sent it... my brain!!

Incidentally, this and agoran@live.com raises another and as far as I know
unanswered issue: is an email address a unique identifier of a person? If
not, how on earth are we supposed to tell who sent a message? And if so,
then who am I when I send a message from another email address?


Caller's Evidence:

[evidence #1]

2008/9/16 Phil Lister <phillllllllllllll@googlemail.com>:
> I, Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in English
> and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) who has never been a player
> before, request to register per Rule 869.
> --
> Phill

[evidence #2]

2008/9/24 Phil Lister <phillllllllllllll@googlemail.com>
> My registration was sent by tusho though it has now ratified as being from
> I am not a real person.
> Sorry for the deceit and a special apology to OscarMeyr, who welcomed me.
> CFJs at 11.
> --
> Phill


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

I judge both of these TRUE.  From what I can ascertain, tusho
registered, assuming e was not already registered under a different
nickname, on 9 Aug 2008, and has not since deregistered; no player has
been deregistered that I see a record of since that date, whether
voluntarily, by writ of FAGE, or by sentence of EXILE.  Rule 2170's
ratification of who published a message only purports to apply to a
claim that a particular person actually published the message, not to
a claim that the publisher of the message is distinct from every other
person or to any other claims about attributes of the person who
published the message.  In particular, a claim in any public message
that the publisher has never been a player of Agora cannot
retroactively cause that person's earlier valid registration to have
never happened.